Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Connie Chung Tonight

Inside the Mind of a Serial Killer; Smallpox Vaccine Debate

Aired September 03, 2002 - 20:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CONNIE CHUNG, HOST: Good evening. I'm Connie Chung.

Tonight: inside the mind of a serial killer, how to recognize him, how he's hunting women in Louisiana.

ANNOUNCER: Are police in Louisiana now a step closer to solving a serial crime?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARY ANNE GODOWA, BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT: This is an impulsive individual. When determined to do something, he disregards the consequences of his acts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Tonight: the profile of a killer who has a city on edge, as a victim's mother searches for closure.

Smallpox, the deadly disease wiped out 20 years ago, now a possible threat as a weapon of bioterrorism.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ROBERT BELSHE, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE: There's a lot of people that should not be vaccinated with the smallpox vaccine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Should you be vaccinated against smallpox?

She's 17, beautiful, and has a 125--mile-per-hour serve. Is tennis sensation Simonya Popova, now in "Sports Illustrated," too good to be true? Apparently so.

This is CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT. Live from the CNN Broadcast Center in New York: Connie Chung.

CHUNG: Good evening.

Tonight: FBI profilers have revealed new details of a serial killer, a partial profile of an unidentified, unknown murderer who has strangled and stabbed three women in and around Baton Rouge, Louisiana, over the past year.

In the profile, the FBI said the killer is a man age 25 to 35, size 10 or 11 shoes, and powerful enough to lift 155 to 175 pounds. It was also revealed how a killer thinks and how he stalks his prey. They emphasized that the people around him and even his victims may perceive him as a typical nice guy, even helpful. And the FBI said his method may be to try and befriend his victims before turning on them.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GODOWA: He put himself in a position to see them, observe them, or even casually run into them prior to the assaults, he would have obtained information about where they lived and something about their patterns of behavior.

This offender may also have perceived more of a relationship with these women than what there was. Women who have been or will be questioned by investigators may not even think to mention this individual because he seems so harmless.

Following the death of Charlotte Murray Pace on Friday, May 31, 2002, this offender would have likely behaved in a very angry and agitated manner for a period of time. News reports and other mention of Ms. Pace and what happened to her would have precipitated his making particularly disparaging remarks about her.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHUNG: Joining me now is Ann Pace, the mother of one of the victims: Charlotte Murray Pace. And she joins us from Jackson, Mississippi.

Mrs. Pace, thank you. I so appreciate your talking with us again.

Mrs. Pace, tell me how you're doing.

ANN PACE, MOTHER OF CHARLOTTE MURRAY PACE: Reasonably well, all things considered. Some days are far more difficult than others.

CHUNG: I'm sure that you are now aware of what the FBI has released in terms of a profile of the killer. What did you think of it?

PACE: Well, it was interesting.

Much of it, we'd speculated about among ourselves. And by ourselves, I mean the families of the three women, Gina and Pam and Murray. And some of the things -- many of the things -- we knew he was strong. I knew he was strong, because of the level of Murray's fitness and the fact that she was not petite, like Pam and Gina. And I knew, from speaking with the coroner and with the police, that she had fought fiercely and had left her own injuries, which is one of the things I hope someone will remember. But other things came as quite a surprise. I believe they mentioned that he might have had a criminal history, which surprised me very much, because had I guessed, I would have guessed that he did not, because one of the things they've emphasized all along is his innocuousness, the way he fits into a group or a crowd and is indistinguishable from anyone else.

CHUNG: Yes, they made him out to be a person who pretends like he's a nice guy and somewhat normal.

Now, there were a few other characteristics. And I'm wondering if you know of anyone who might fit this description who may have been acquainted with your daughter Murray. All right: Impulsive, determined, nonthreatening, 25 to 35 years old, anything fit that description?

PACE: Nothing that I know of. But he certainly -- he's proved himself to be -- he has to be impulsive. He took enormous risk.

And, in the case of Murray, she was only going to be home about an hour in the course of that entire day -- so some impulsivity. And it was unpredictable that she would be there. It seems that he must have simply caught her there and taken advantage of the opportunity.

CHUNG: Mrs. Pace...

PACE: But nothing -- I don't think of anyone that would match that description just connected to her specifically.

CHUNG: Another description that we just mentioned was that the FBI profiler said that he was probably very normal-looking. Don't you find that a bit frightening?

PACE: Oh, yes. I think anyone would find that frightening.

And it seems clear that that's the case with this man, because he -- no one seems to be able to identify him. And that's what we hope so much, with this description coming out, that if somebody will make the connections, there's the injuries we know that he suffered with in his struggle with Murray. And there are -- and then with these additional descriptions, somebody may have thought the explanation he gave for scratches on his neck or face made sense.

But when you add in the additional information that this profile provides, there just might be so many things that this person feels compelled to come forward, because I absolutely believe that there is someone or maybe even more than one person out there who has information that could solve this case, if they could just realize it and then come forward.

CHUNG: Mrs. Pace, I want to show a little bit more of the news conference and then have you talk about it.

Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GODOWA: We feel, as we have said in the past, that there is someone listening to this briefing today who has information or who knows this offender, but has not come forward yet because it is so hard to believe that it could be a loved one, such as a son, a brother, a husband or even a boyfriend.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHUNG: And that is exactly what you were saying. There is someone out there who knows this person that just isn't pinpointing the connection, right?

PACE: Well, right, exactly.

And all you have to do is think of the Unabomber, who was turned in, reluctantly and sadly, by his brother. And I think this person will be someone like that. And it is. It is so difficult to accept what seems impossible knowledge about someone you care about or someone who's close to you. But, clearly, there's someone out there who does possess that information.

And I hope that they will -- that the bits of the description and the injuries that Murray inflicted and the fact that the timeframe -- they were all -- all the murders were committed on a weekend. So this person almost certainly has a job and goes to work with other people.

CHUNG: Yes.

Mrs. Pace, I thank you so much.

PACE: If...

CHUNG: Go ahead.

PACE: If someone will just -- you're very welcome. I'm sorry.

CHUNG: No, no, no. If someone would just come out and think about it.

PACE: If someone would just add it all up, if enough facts match this person, unlikely as it seems, if they would just say, "Well, maybe, and I'll let the police decide and come forward and say something," I believe that will be what solves this.

CHUNG: All right, Ann Pace, I thank you so much for being with us. And we will certainly have you in our thoughts.

PACE: Thank you. I appreciate that.

CHUNG: We wanted to figure out just how the FBI put together its profile today and what exactly it tells us, so we've brought back criminal profiler Pat Brown, CEO of the Sexual Homicide Exchange. And she joins us from Washington.

Pat, thank you for being with us.

PAT BROWN, CEO, SEXUAL HOMICIDE EXCHANGE: Good evening, Connie.

CHUNG: Tell me, what does it take for the FBI to put this profile together? What did they do?

BROWN: Well, I'm a little concerned about the profile, because it, to me, is a very generic profile.

Most criminals are between the age of 25 and 35. And these are kind of just natural things that they already are. And it's not really going to pinpoint too much for these people. I think what they really needed to go was one step further, to describe, first of all, the serial killer is a psychopath, and then to describe this particular killer as being an anger-retaliatory killer, which leads to some other kinds of behaviors, and then to go even further and specify to the public exactly what behaviors matching these particular crimes, like the car issue and the scratches possibly on him.

These specific things, each one of these should be specified a little clearer, so people really know what they're looking for.

CHUNG: Well, why do you suppose that isn't coming through? I mean, what is wrong, then? If that's what you believe -- and you've had experience in all of this -- why isn't it happening in Baton Rouge for the FBI and for the local police?

BROWN: I'm really not sure.

This is kind of a standard profile that seems to go out with an awful lot of serial killers. And that's one of the biggest problems with this investigation, is that not enough information has been given to the public, and some misinformation as well.

For example, they said that he's a nice guy. He's just like your brother or your husband or your boyfriend. Well, this guy isn't a nice normal guy. He may look average as far as if you saw him on the street, he may be...

CHUNG: Yes, but how do you know that, Pat Brown? How do you know that, because you're not intimately involved in this case? So how do you know that they are mistaken in saying that he's a nice guy and he's normal? I mean, he appears to be normal.

BROWN: Right.

Because he is an anger-retaliatory serial killer who has a lot of rage issues towards women. He's unsuccessful in life. He's unlikely to have a long-term relationship with women. He probably is losing jobs because he can't get along with people. He probably has power issues. He's been odd for a very long time.

Now, he may look nice if you just talk to him on the street for five minutes. And the family may say, well, he may look OK, but everybody in that family and all the people who have known him for any length of time will say: "That guy is odd. He does strange things. He says things about women that are odd." He says things -- for example, maybe he's obsessed with Spider- Man or Superman, some kind of power issues. Perhaps he does things like -- since he's kind of a stalker, perhaps he does what we call sneak-and-stand, where suddenly you look up and there he is standing in the doorway and you're like, "What do you want?" And he's just staring and watching.

He'll do things like this. So, he's not a normal guy. Anybody who knows him would know that.

CHUNG: Then what do you think the investigators are saying when they tell everyone, when they tell the public that he's normal; he seems like a nice guy? Is that a very superficial view of him?

BROWN: Extremely superficial, and it really doesn't give anybody anything to work with, because what they're basically saying is, he's not a monster. He's not drooling. He's not severely psychotic.

Yes, this is true. He does probably goes to work and he probably can walk down the street and say good morning and smile at you. And that could be the way he gets into the houses. He could knock on the door and look pleasant for a minute. But that doesn't mean that the people around him that know him well aren't saying: "God, I went out with that guy once and he gave me the creeps. Or I tried have a relationship with him and he said so many strange things, I dumped him in two weeks."

There's something wrong with this guy. And anybody who's been around him knows this. And, also, during the times of the crimes, he's probably broken up with a girlfriend. He's probably lost a job. He's having issues. And he's probably complaining that everybody has done him wrong. So, people can look at this timeframe and see that he's falling apart, someone around them who is falling apart.

And, afterwards, they may notice that he has stupid explanations for things, like maybe he borrowed somebody's car in the last crime and didn't return it 24 hours and had some excuse why he broke down someplace. Or if he had scratches, he says, "Oh, yes, I played with somebody's cat." And you'll go, "You don't even know anybody with a cat."

These are pathological liars. So come up with somebody that doesn't make sense. And the person who knows these people well enough should start looking at this guy a little bit more closely. And these are the type of things that the public really needs to know to help the police.

CHUNG: Bottom line, yes or no, do you think that this profile could lead to a lead in this case?

BROWN: This profile is so vague that it's really not going to help in bringing somebody in. All we can hope is that there is an astute public out there who may look a little further than this profile to really start analyzing those people around them. And it would help, I would say, so much more if they would really go into what a serial killer is like, what psychopathic behaviors he would exhibit, and what specifics things they should look for.

And if they go this vague, they are not going to bring in a lot of tips that are useful. And it's a shame.

CHUNG: Thank you. Appreciate it, Pat Brown, for being with us.

And because the killer struck at sites associated with Louisiana State University, the return to classes this year has been a lot more nerve-wracking than usual.

And joining us now from Baton Rouge is LSU Chancellor Mark Emmert.

Thank you for being with us, sir.

Chancellor Emmert, classes did begin last week. Do students seem to be concerned?

MARK EMMERT, CHANCELLOR, LSU: Well, of course they are.

We've done everything we can to communicate all of the actions we're taking to make the campus the very safe place that it is. But, of course, there's a lot of anxiety out there.

CHUNG: Do you feel that you can assure students and their parents that the campus is safe? Because it's so difficult to predict when students are walking around the campus. They stay up all night and study. And they're likely to be walking around at 3:00 in the morning.

EMMERT: Well, of course, we worry a great deal about that.

What we know from all of the facts, of course, is that the campus itself is a very safe place. The university has extremely low crime rates. It's a very safe place to be. And the fact that the students are back on campus actually makes the campus safer, because there's, of course, safety in number.

These crimes, these horrible crimes, for which we're all deeply disturbed, have occurred off campus at off-campus venues, in some cases a good ways from campus. But, nonetheless, it makes all of us very on edge.

CHUNG: Have you asked the coeds to walk in twos and threes and assured them that, if they are walking alone, that they can have a security guard with them?

EMMERT: We've done all, I think, the sensible things that we should do. We've communicated with students about what does constitute safe behavior how, they can handle themselves to make sure they don't put themselves at risk.

We have a large number of, in fact, over-enrolled right now classes for self-defense and crime awareness. Students are taking great advantage of that. We've added some new security measures for communication, including a new on-campus 578 number, our own 911 number for cell phone operators. We've made available transportation, so if anyone feels at any time like they would like to get a ride from our public safety officers from one point of campus to another, they can do that.

And we're seeing that pay off, Connie. We're seeing students and faculty and staff behave in very responsible fashion. And we're very encouraged by that.

CHUNG: All right, Chancellor, I want to thank you so much for talking to us about this issue.

But I'd like you to stay with us, because we have another issue we want to address with you, if you would.

EMMERT: OK.

CHUNG: And when we come back: the story of the man your university fired today, in discussing Chancellor Emmert's decision, and why he fired him, and why it's national news right after this.

ANNOUNCER: Coming up: Is an ancient plague the weapon of the future? The smallpox threat -- when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: We have two stories to bring you now about the ongoing effort to defend America against bioterrorism.

First, anthrax: One of the men named by the FBI as a -- quote -- "person of interest" in the anthrax probe, Steven Hatfill, was fired today, fired from his post as associate director of the National Center for Biomedical Research and Training.

CNN justice correspondent Kelli Arena has been covering this story and joins us now from Washington.

Kelli, why was he fired?

KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Connie, Louisiana State University is not getting into details.

Hatfill had been placed on paid administrative leave at LSU at the beginning of August, after his apartment was searched by FBI agents for a second time. Now, the university says that it's terminating its relationship with him at this point. In a statement, the school's chancellor says that "the decision was not reached quickly or easily" and that "the university is making no judgment as to Hatfill's guilt or innocence regarding the FBI investigation."

Beyond that, Connie, they're not explaining much.

CHUNG: Kelli, I must be missing something, because, if they're not passing judgment, why was he fired? It seems as if they are passing judgment.

ARENA: Well, it would seem that way. It's interesting, though, Connie. There has been absolutely no evidence linking Hatfill to the anthrax attacks. As you know, he has consistently said that he's innocent, in fact has held two press conferences to make his point.

CHUNG: And no charges have been filed, right?

ARENA: That's right. No charges have been filed.

And it's also important to note that sources have said that there are as many as 20 people that are under scrutiny in the anthrax investigation. But Hatfill, of course, is the only person that has been discussed publicly. So, there is no hard evidence, nothing being said by investigators, no charges brought. The university, though, says they consider this to be a move in their best interests.

CHUNG: And what does Hatfill have to say?

ARENA: Well, through his spokesperson, Hatfill says that his life has been completely and utterly destroyed by John Ashcroft and the FBI. He also says that 20 years of training is now down the tubes. He also criticized LSU for not telling him directly and instead going through his lawyer to let him know that he had been fired.

CHUNG: So, once again, can you recap the investigation? Where does the investigation stand at this point?

ARENA: Well, investigators have said that they are focusing on individuals who would have had both the access and the expertise to pull off the anthrax attacks. So, that's basically the scientific community. And they are, for the most part, still working on the assumption that this was a domestic attack. Bottom line, though, as you said, Connie, there have been no arrests and no one charged with any crime almost a year after those attacks.

CHUNG: All right, Kelli Arena, thank you so much.

ARENA: You're welcome.

CHUNG: And now we're going bring back Louisiana State University Chancellor Mark Emmert, the man who fired Hatfill.

Sir, I have to tell you that it seems as if the university is indeed passing judgment. If the university were still considering whether to keep him on, that would be another story. But you have actually fired him.

EMMERT: Well, we're most certainly not passing judgment about his innocence or guilt regarding any of these investigations by the FBI or anyone else.

CHUNG: But he doesn't have his job anymore. He doesn't have his job anymore.

EMMERT: Well, I certainly understand that. Our decision was based solely upon what was in the best long-term interests of the university. We have to worry about the ability of the university to conduct its business as a research-intensive university, as an institution that values its academic integrity as its most important value. And it was in the context of our general mission and our ability to fulfill that mission that Mr. Hatfill's relationship with us was terminated.

CHUNG: But why would you think he wouldn't be able to carry out his job? Because, at this point, he is not a suspect. He's not even being called a suspect by the government. No charges have been filed. What makes you think he wouldn't be able to do his job?

EMMERT: Well, as we've said in our statement, Connie, unfortunately, we're not at liberty to comment on the specifics of this or any other personnel action. University policy and practice prohibits us from commenting on any specific details of a termination.

CHUNG: Sir, is that fair? Can you honestly say, is that fair to Mr. Hatfill, if you can't say why he was fired? Was he told why he was fired?

EMMERT: We put Mr. Hatfill on leave with pay for 30 days to give us a chance to fully explore and investigate this whole issue and all the matters surrounding it. And we're confident that we've acted objectively and thoughtfully and fairly in this matter.

CHUNG: Don't you have any empathy for this man? I mean, he has not been even called by the Justice Department a prime suspect or even a suspect.

He says -- and I quote -- "My life has been completely and utterly destroyed by the attorney general, John Ashcroft, and the FBI. I don't have a job. I'm now unemployed. Twenty years worth of training is down the tubes. My professional reputation is in tatters."

And, on the face of it, it appears as if you have simply joined that bandwagon. You have dismissed him and not told what the reason is.

EMMERT: Well, all personnel decisions are very difficult ones. And I have great empathy with all people that have difficulties in their careers. And this is certainly no exception.

CHUNG: What has he done wrong?

EMMERT: Again, we most certainly are not taking any position on his guilt or innocence relative to the FBI investigations.

CHUNG: All right, well, I thank you so much for being with us, Chancellor Emmert.

EMMERT: Thank you.

CHUNG: And we're going to turn to tonight's other story linked to potential biological weapons.

Many of you might not remember the days when children were vaccinated for smallpox as routinely as they are just given shots for polio or chicken pox now. In fact, it's been 30 years. But we live in a different world now. And President Bush is expected to decide soon whether every single American should be able to get the smallpox vaccine if they want to.

And if you thought it was a no-brainer, getting a vaccine against a deadly disease, a possible weapon in the hands of America's enemies, you're wrong, possibly dead wrong.

CNN medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta explains.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Americans haven't been vaccinated for smallpox since 1972. But that may soon change.

TOMMY THOMPSON, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY: It's into the White House right now. And the White House is reviewing my recommendations. And, hopefully, we'll have a decision in the near future.

GUPTA: Although triumphantly eradicated from the world in 1979, experts are concerned smallpox could show up again, this time as a weapon of bioterrorism.

SEN. BILL FRIST (R), TENNESSEE: I would say that the risk of a smallpox attack is very real. I would say that that risk is increasing, compared to, say, five or 10 years ago. And I would say, as a nation, that we do remain highly vulnerable if smallpox is used as an instrument of war.

GUPTA: Highly vulnerable, because if you are under 32, you probably haven't been vaccinated. And if you're older and did receive the shot, it's questionable how much protection you still have.

FRIST: Every American should have the opportunity to make an informed individual choice, to evaluate those risks, plus those benefits, to receive that smallpox vaccine.

GUPTA: It's weighing the risks and the benefits that makes this vaccine so complicated.

BELSHE: There's a lot of people that should not be vaccinated with smallpox vaccine.

GUPTA: Dr. Robert Belshe of St. Louis University has worked on several smallpox vaccine trials.

BELSHE: The logistics of conducting a large-scale vaccination program, if we're talking on the order of millions, would be enormously complex.

GUPTA: And the vaccination itself could cost serious side- effects.

DR. D.A. HENDERSON, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: The persons most at risk are those who have a serious skin condition of eczema, people who are being treated for cancer, people who are getting organ transplantation, people who have a severe HIV disease.

GUPTA: That's because their immune system is more susceptible to the live virus in the vaccine. They're so susceptible, they could even catch a variety of the disease from someone who has been recently vaccinated.

(on camera): And sometimes, people will die. Remember New York 1947, a smallpox outbreak. Six million people were vaccinated. Two died from the disease and eight from vaccination side-effects. Experts warn that the numbers could even be higher today due to the increase in eczema, HIV and even cancer.

HENDERSON: We would estimate maybe two to four deaths per million might be more likely today.

GUPTA (voice-over): If everyone in the country were vaccinated, the death toll could approach 1,000. That's still better than the death toll in previous outbreaks with no vaccinations. Then, 16 to 30 percent of those infected died. It's a great medical debate: to vaccinate or not to vaccinate? Soon we may all have to decide.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHUNG: And Dr. Sanjay Gupta, our medical correspondent, joins us now.

Thank you, Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

Tell us, how serious would a smallpox epidemic be?

GUPTA: Well, first of all, if we saw even a single case of smallpox, experts say that that is an act of terrorism. We haven't seen smallpox in 22 years. So, if we suddenly see it springing up, it probably represents terrorism.

The virus itself, it's predicted that it would probably kill 30 percent of the people that it infects. Connie, you also saw, even short of killing people, it's a very, very devastating disease in terms of leaving all these pockmarks, all these disfiguring scars, really, all over the body and making people very, very sick. So it's a potentially very serious virus.

CHUNG: And why is it such an effective biological weapon?

GUPTA: Well, you know, the World Health Organization actually looks at viruses and bacteria and things like that that could potentially be used as weapons of bioterrorism.

Anthrax, we certainly heard so much about. Smallpox is right behind that on the same list there. You've also got things like botulism and plague and Ebola. I don't say all those things to scare people. But what they look at to try and figure out if something is a bioterrorism weapon is something that could potentially kill people -- smallpox does that -- something that is potentially accessible.

We know that live strains of smallpox exist in the world today, maybe even in the hands of people that we don't want to have that. And, finally, it is something that is contagious. People can actually transmit this virus from person to person. So, if you have it, you could possibly transmit that to people around you. Those are all very concerning things for a terrorism weapon.

CHUNG: And how easy would it be for someone to get their hands on it?

GUPTA: Well, you know, that's sort of a really important question.

What we do know is that, at the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control, here in Atlanta, a live virus exists. And it also exists in Russia. But after the collapse of the USSR, it was believed that perhaps the virus actually got into other countries as well, perhaps even to some rogue nations that may be trying to use that for bioterrorism.

But we don't really know any of that for sure. That's all speculative at this point. But that's what some of the intelligence is telling us. And that's what sort of getting these wheels in motion towards vaccinating.

CHUNG: Sanjay, can you explain why the vaccination that I had years and years ago would no longer be effective?

GUPTA: That's an interesting point. And there's been a little bit of controversy surrounding that. The conventional wisdom is that, listen, if you had a vaccine shot 30, 35 years ago, the immunity from that shot has probably completely disappeared and you really have no protection against smallpox.

There was actually a study -- it was a small study -- out of North Carolina that looked at that very issue. What they found was sort of interesting, Connie. They found that, even in people that had had shots 35 years ago, they had about two-thirds the immunity of someone that just had a vaccination shot. It's hard to know what that really means, if it's enough protection. But there does appear to be some immunity still in people that had shots even over 35 years ago.

CHUNG: All right, and we don't have an exact date at which President Bush will be making his decision, correct?

GUPTA: That's right. We've actually talked to the secretary of health about that. He said it could be anywhere from two weeks to two months.

It's clearly on the agenda. It's clearly something they're thinking about. But a lot of people need weigh in on this, Connie, because of all the reasons that we've talked about. This is a vaccine that could potentially immunize the nation. But people will die from this vaccine. And that's a very important point. It's an important point legally. It's an important point medically. So it's something that a lot of people are thinking about.

And most everybody that we're talking to has talked about not making this a mandatory vaccination, but rather a voluntary vaccination, educating people about the risks and the benefits and letting people decide whether or not they want to be vaccinated.

CHUNG: Dr. Sanjay Gupta, thank you so much for being with us.

GUPTA: Thank you.

CHUNG: And we'll be right back.

But first, tonight's "Off the Radar" looks at a possible bioweapon that might be even scarier than smallpox.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: Out of all the potential biological weapons out there, few are more fearsome than Ebola. The virus is particularly hideous and fast. It causes fever, vomiting, heavy bleeding and the virtual disintegration of internal organs. There's no known cure and no vaccine, though early tests of a vaccine for monkeys have been encouraging.

DR. GARY NABEL, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH: We've found that it's possible to protect against the lethal effects of Ebola virus in a primate model. By vaccinating animals ahead of time against Ebola virus, we were able to prevent them from dying from the infection.

ANNOUNCER: The Ebola virus has killed more than 800 people in about a dozen outbreaks since it was first discovered in the 1970s. It's highly contagious and fatal in more than half of all cases.

With no cure and no vaccine, how have health officials kept the virus from spreading beyond the outbreaks? And how does the virus itself help them, in grisly fashion? The answers when we return.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: How have health officials managed to contain the deadly and so far uncurable Ebola virus? The virus is spread by bodily fluids, so health officials rely on massive quarantines to stop the disease. The other factor helping them out is the virus itself. Ebola is so fast and so lethal, it often simply kills its victims before they have time to spread the disease to others.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHUNG: We'll continue.

(NEWS BREAK)

CHUNG: We'll be right back.

ANNOUNCER: Next: their father brutally murdered and their home burned to cover the crime, one man already tried for killing. Now two brothers go to trial. Who killed Terry Lee King? -- when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: An extraordinary trial began in Pensacola, Florida, today. Two boys are charged with killing their father.

And that's not even the most unusual aspect of this case. What's really strange about it is this: Another jury may already have convicted someone else for the crime.

CNN's David Mattingly lays it out for us.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): From the beginning, it was a crime almost impossible to believe.

MATTINGLY: David Mattingly, CNN.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHUNG: Look at those little faces.

(LAUGHTER)

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: They're tiny.

CHUNG: CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin is here.

Help us with this. This is so strange: two trials for the same crime naming different murderers -- and those little angelic faces. My gosh.

TOOBIN: This is really an unbelievable situation. And you haven't asked, but have I ever heard of anything like this?

CHUNG: Well, yes, it was implied.

TOOBIN: Absolutely not. Not at all.

The thing that's really troubling about this case -- it's really troubling -- is that -- you know, I used to be a prosecutor. And one of the things you do as a prosecutor, you're taught, is that you're different from other lawyers, is that you are obliged only to go forward when you're convinced that you have got the right person and only that person.

If you're civil lawyer and you say that your client is accused of banging up a car, and you can say, "Well, you know, I never had the car, and it was banged up when I got it." You can be inconsistent.

CHUNG: You can?

TOOBIN: It happens all the time in civil cases.

Defense lawyers in criminal cases, they don't have to believe their clients are innocent. But prosecutors are different. And these prosecutors are going forward saying that: "We don't know what happened here. Maybe this guy did it. Maybe the kids did it. We'll let the jury figure it out."

Think about it. If both are convicted, if all three of them are convicted...

CHUNG: Yes, what happens?

TOOBIN: There will be an innocent person in jail for life. You saw how these kids looked.

CHUNG: Yes.

TOOBIN: They are unbelievably young. They are being tried as adults.

CHUNG: Why?

TOOBIN: Well, that's been the trend in law enforcement recently, that no one wants to see kids get away with anything.

So they're being tried as adults. Those kids will be in jail until they die of old age if they're convicted in this crime.

CHUNG: Well, if the prosecutors didn't have the -- forgive me -- good sense to go down one track, shouldn't the judge have weighed in on this?

TOOBIN: You would think. But the judge has obviously let both trials proceed.

Certainly, if one or both of sets of defendants are convicted, it will be a major point on appeal. So, that will be hashed out later. But most convictions, if there are convictions, are not overturned on appeal. And you really have the troubling possibility of the guarantee of innocent people in jail, and not for a little while, for life.

CHUNG: Now, the boys testified against the handyman, Chavis. But he's not going to testify against them. What does that signify to you?

TOOBIN: Well, it certainly suggests he may have something to hide. Or it may simply suggest, like most criminal defendants, he doesn't want to have his past brought out on the stand.

Adding to the complexity here, he is a convicted child molester. If he took the stand, that would certainly be brought out. Juries don't react well to that sort of thing, to say the least. So it's understandable that he would stay off the witness stand.

The kids? Who knows what they'll do now in their own trial. They've already testified as prosecution witnesses in the trial of Chavis. Now we'll see what happens in their own trial.

CHUNG: All right, Jeffrey Toobin, thank you so much.

TOOBIN: I hope it helped.

CHUNG: Yes, it did.

TOOBIN: It's confusing.

CHUNG: But it's bizarre.

We'll be right back.

ANNOUNCER: Still ahead: the hottest woman in tennis, so hot she doesn't even exist.

CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: She's the hottest player in women's tennis today. Her on-court strategy would make a general blush. She's got a serve that causes sonic booms. And did I mention she's incredibly good-looking? What a babe.

She's a tennis sensation from Uzbekistan. Too good to be true? Sure. Because it's not true. Simonya Popova was invented for a "Sports Illustrated" article dissecting the problems in women's tennis. And Simonya is described as the cure for those problems, until the article's final sentence, which reads, "if only she existed."

Well, some folks didn't make it to the final sentence and they're ticked off about what they see as a hoax. We were unable to reach Simonya Popova for comment, but earlier, I put the article's writer, Jon Wertheim, at center court and served up some questions.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHUNG: Jon, whose idea was this?

JON WERTHEIM, "SPORTS ILLUSTRATED": Well, we had sort of been kicking around how to do a story on the state of women's tennis and sort of have some fun with it. And this is what we came up with.

CHUNG: Did your editors approve of it?

WERTHEIM: Oh, sure.

CHUNG: Or did they come up with the idea, along with you?

WERTHEIM: Well, I had gone to a few tournaments and sort of just cooked this up in my head and bounced it off them. And they were, "Give it a whirl."

CHUNG: Then, what was the aim of this piece?

WERTHEIM: Well, it wasn't really a spoof or anything like that so much as it was just sort of a send-up of women's tennis using this fictitious player as a vehicle to stress some of the issues that are facing women's tennis right now.

CHUNG: What issues are you talking about?

WERTHEIM: Well, the sport has a lot of buzz, but that hasn't necessarily trickled down financially to the WTA Tour as an institution. And they've done a good job publicizing glamour, selling sex appeal. But is that a deal with the devil?

CHUNG: You put this woman out there. And you wouldn't do that to men's tennis, because it's not sexy enough.

WERTHEIM: Right.

Well, men's tennis hasn't sold sex the same way that women's tennis has. We had at the U.S. Open Tommy Haas, a player the other day who had a short-sleeved vest on and was forced to change because it wasn't appropriate. So, the men's tennis, on the other hand, does not do this with its players, for better or worse.

CHUNG: And what are you suggesting, that the women players can wear anything they want?

WERTHEIM: Well, if you seen, yes, the outfits of the Williams sisters. I think, in a sense, it's great. Everybody has talked about it. But my fear is that, at some level, the sizzle starts to supplant the steak and the substance gets a little bit lost.

CHUNG: Did you think everybody was going to get it?

WERTHEIM: I did think everybody was going to get it. I guess it tells me something. Not everybody reads to the ends of stories. But I thought there were enough clues sprinkled throughout the story that people would pick up on it and sort of take it for what it was and also take some of the serious points under consideration.

CHUNG: What were some of the clues?

WERTHEIM: Well, again, starting off with the movie "S1m0ne" and the fact just that it's sort of preposterous that a player this good had never before been discovered or mentioned. And some of the things she said, obviously, a 17-year-old from Uzbekistan isn't going to say.

(LAUGHTER)

CHUNG: Such as?

WERTHEIM: "Anna Kournikova has jumped the shark."

(LAUGHTER)

CHUNG: One more?

WERTHEIM: Her parents were going to get tubal ligation to make sure that they didn't have another child.

(LAUGHTER)

WERTHEIM: We had some fun with it.

CHUNG: Well, the WTA was genuinely upset.

WERTHEIM: I hear that. I guess they have better things to do during the U.S. Open than answer questions about fictitious players.

CHUNG: Do you think they were just taking themselves too seriously?

WERTHEIM: Well, I think, at some level, too, that they realized that they've created this culture now where people expect their athletes not just to just hit forehands and backhands, but to be celebrities as well. And I think that's one of the dangers. I think it's one reason they're popular, but, long-term, it's one of the dangers, I think.

CHUNG: You know, a sports writer believed it, called the WTA, and wanted a reply.

WERTHEIM: I had heard that. That really surprises me, because it's very rare that a player would come from nowhere and materialize like this.

But, also, I think it sort of speaks to the larger issue, which is, people aren't necessarily surprised, that results right now aren't necessarily the coin of the realm in women's tennis. And you could argue either way, but it doesn't surprise me, necessarily, that people felt that.

CHUNG: That it was real?

WERTHEIM: Right.

CHUNG: Not a hoax. Do you think that person who thought it was real is an idiot?

(LAUGHTER)

WERTHEIM: Oh, I wouldn't say that. Perhaps they just got seduced by the photo.

(LAUGHTER)

CHUNG: Well, since you talk about the photo, I mean, weren't you -- wasn't "Sports Illustrated" trying to seduce the public with that photo?

WERTHEIM: Well, the photo was the head of the Al Pacino movie "S1m0ne." So it was sort of -- that was another sort of tipoff that we were just having some fun.

CHUNG: Yes, but how many people really know that that movie is out?

WERTHEIM: The intention here was never to sort of deceive or to pull off a hoax. It was just sort of to have some fun and use this, again, as a vehicle to emphasize some of the other issues.

CHUNG: Did you have to sleep with Simonya to get this article?

WERTHEIM: That's what I should tell my friends. No, I'm a -- that's one good thing about writing fiction. I didn't have to do anything. I didn't have to sell my soul in any way.

CHUNG: After all this controversy, would you do it again?

WERTHEIM: Oh, I don't know. I mean, again, I'm really blown away by how many people believed this. Maybe we needed to put a warning in red letters on the front. And I hope that the larger story didn't get lost, but that's my fear.

CHUNG: And do you think your credibility is intact?

WERTHEIM: Oh, I would hope so. I think people that know tennis knew off the bat that this was a joke and read it for what it was, which was a serious piece.

CHUNG: Thank you, Jon Wertheim.

WERTHEIM: Thanks a lot.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHUNG: Yes, right.

In a statement today, the Women's Tennis association said -- quote -- "We definitely give it a 10 for creativity and low marks on accuracy in terms of how it portrayed us as a tour. We understand it's fictional. We're disappointed they chose to dedicate five pages to a fictional player when there are so many great real players." And that's the statement from the WTA.

Still ahead: how 9/11 changed your life -- 9/11.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: Over the past few weeks, we've asked you for videotape submissions describing how the events of 9/11 changed your life. We've gotten a very positive response.

Tonight, we want to play a tape from 11-year-old Talia Ghaffari from Scottsdale, Arizona. She chose to express herself not just with words, but with music.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TALIA GHAFFARI, 11 YEARS OLD: I learned something important from 9/11. That is, you should love America all the time, not just in times of crisis. A good thing that came from 9/11 is that our country is stronger and became more united. The feeling I had from the very day of 9/11 I cannot explain in words, but I can explain in music.

That's why I composed "September Heroes."

(PIANO MUSIC)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHUNG: Talia, that was incredible.

If you'd like to tell us how 9/11 affected you, send your videotape to CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT, P.O. Box 5138, New York, New York, 10185. And be sure to include your name and address. But, I'm sorry, we won't be able to return your tapes. For more information, log on to CNN.com/Connie.

And tomorrow: a rare look inside an ancient secret society that has included U.S. presidents among its ranks: the Skull & Bones.

And "LARRY KING LIVE" is next with Bill Clinton and Bob Dole.

Thank you for joining us. Good night.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com